The Scope of Piercing the Corporate Veil of Shareholders in a Limited Company in Georgia: A Comparative Analysis of German and Georgian Law
Simon Takashvili
Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani University , Georgiahttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-8608-170X
Tinatin Peikrishvili
Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani University , Georgiahttps://orcid.org/0009-0005-9457-0956
Salome Koberidze
Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani University , Georgiahttps://orcid.org/0009-0000-1799-4126
Giorgi Chikviladze
Sulkhan-saba Orbeliani University , Georgiahttps://orcid.org/0009-0000-3598-5629
Abstract
Under the Association Agreement, Georgia undertook the obligation to harmonize its legislation with EU legal standards. This commitment is reflected in the Law of Georgia "On Entrepreneurs", adopted in 2022. The new law offers regulation on corporate veil piercing, but, due to its novelty, Georgian judicial practice and doctrinal interpretations are still very scarce for establishing a legal standard. The article examines the legal framework of piercing the corporate veil in Georgian law through a comparative analysis with German law. Although the corporate veil traditionally protects shareholders from personal liability, both the Georgian and German legal systems recognize exceptions in which this protection may be disregarded. Georgian law establishes two cumulative preconditions for piercing the corporate veil: abuse of the legal form and the company’s inability to satisfy creditors. The Supreme Court of Georgia has identified indicators of such abuse, including the “alter ego” doctrine, commingling of assets, and undercapitalization. At the same time, the article examines the relationship between tort and corporate liability, addressing the potential competition of legal remedies available to creditors when imposing personal liability on shareholders. The research aims to contribute to the development of Georgian judicial practice by analyzing the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil and its role in strengthening creditor protection and corporate accountability.
Keywords:
veil pierce, shareholder, personal liability, abuse, legal form, assetsReferences
Birkmose, Hans S., Mette Neville, and Karsten Engsig Sørensen. Abuse of Companies. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International B.V., 2019.
Burduli, Irakli, Giorgi Makharoblishvili, Ana Tokhadze, Nona Zubitashvili, Giorgi Aladashvili, Gvantsa Maghradze, and Demetre Egnatashvili. Corporate Law. Tbilisi: World of Lawyers, 2022.
Chachava, Sophie. “Competition of Claims and Grounds for Claims in Private Law.” PhD diss., Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, 2011.
Fløghoff, Carsten. “Germany.” In European Corporate Law, edited by Karel Van Hulle and Harald Gesell, 155–68. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2006.
Fras, Mariusz. “The Doctrine of Veil-Piercing Liability in Poland and Selected Countries: A Comparative Law Study.” Journal of Civil Law Studies 14, no. 1 (2022): 101–30.
Giguashvili, Giorgi, and Giorgi Jugheli. Commentary on the Law of Georgia on Entrepreneurs. Tbilisi: Investor Council Secretariat, 2022.
Jungmann, Christian, and Daniele Santoro. German GmbH Law: Das deutsche GmbH-Recht. 2nd ed. München: C.H. Beck, 2020.
Kaura, Geetika. “Piercing the Corporate Veil: A Necessary Puncture in the Fabric of the Corporate.” Jus Corpus Law Journal 3, no. 1 (2022): 658–70.
Ketevan, Meskhishvili, Giorgi Batlidze, and Natia Amisulashvili. Grounds for Insolvency Proceedings under the Law of Georgia on Rehabilitation and the Collective Satisfaction of Creditors’ Claims. Tbilisi: GIZ, 2021.
Müller, Klaus J. The GmbH: A Guide to the German Limited Liability Company. 3rd ed. München: C.H. Beck, 2016.
Nelissen Grade, Jean-Marie, and Matthias Wauters. “Reforming Legal Capital: Harmonisation or Fragmentation of Creditor Protection?.” In The European Company Law Action Plan Revisited: Reassessment of the 2003 Priorities of the European Commission, edited by Koen Geens and Klaus J. Hopt, 25–77. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2010.
Rosengarten, Joachim, Frank Burmeister, and Martin Klein. The German Limited Liability Company. 9th ed. München: C.H. Beck, 2020.
Sanders, Anne. “Binding Capital to Free Purpose: Steward Ownership in Germany.” European Company and Financial Law Review 19, no. 4 (2022): 622–53. https://doi.org/10.1515/ecfr-2022-0020.
Schröder-Frerkes, Andreas, and Anja Göhring. The Limited Liability Company under German Law (GmbH). Woking: German Law Publishers, 2020.
Stroe, Iulia Cristina. “Piercing the Corporate Veil in International Commercial Arbitration: A Brief Overview.” Romanian Arbitration Journal / Revista Romana de Arbitraj 66, no. 1 (2024): 17–41.
Tan, Cheng Han, Jasmine Wang, and Christopher Hofmann. “Piercing the Corporate Veil: Historical, Theoretical & Comparative Perspectives.” Berkeley Business Law Journal 16, no. 1 (2019): 140–204.
Ustiashvili, Giorgi. “Corporate Veil Piercing – In the Doctrine of Georgian, German, and U.S. Law.” In Sergo Jorbenadze 90, edited by Sergo Jorbenadze, 141–67. Tbilisi: Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani University, 2019.
Vandekerckhove, Karen. Piercing the Corporate Veil: A Transnational Approach. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2007.
Vicari, Andrea. European Company Law. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2021.
Wirth, Gerard, Michael Arnold, Ralf Morshäuser, and Steffen Carl. Corporate Law in Germany. 4th ed. München: C.H. Beck, 2024.
Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani University https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8608-170X
